Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

';tribe ~he Manner in which such Acts, Records ;uld Proceedin§s shall be proved, ,md ~h~ Effecl thereof." Cungress passed the full faith and credit ~tatute in ~79© to implement Article IV, § ~. The ~nodern version of the statute, 28 U.S.C. § t738, provides that "judicial pro- ceedings.., shah have the same full faith aad credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State;..." In this case, the owner of the San Remo Hotel in San Francisco asked the Supreme Court to make an exception to the full faith and credit statute. He wanted to bring his federal [a~ings claims into federal court after the state court had already entered a final judgment denying him just compensa- tion. San Remo's argument went this way: Since takings claims based on the U.S. Constilution against a state or local govern- meat cannot be brought into federal court until the property owner has been denied just compensation in state court (see Wilti(]mson County v. H~milton Bank [473 U.S. zT:z (z985)]), a federal takings claim mi§hr never be heard in federal court unless the state court's decision is disregarded. San Remo argued that the federal courts si]ould hear the takin§s claim anew. The U.S. Supreme Court, i~ a decision written by Justice Stevens in which all the Justices ioined, rejected San Remo's argument. ARGUED BY APA The American Plannin§ Association filed an amicus curiae brief to share with the Court why it would be unfair to communities if developers were ~iven two bites at the !irish, orion ,mple. APA ioim.~d the Community Rights Counsel, the California State Asso- ciation of Counties, and the League of California Cities in filing the brief written by Timothy ]. Oowling and Douglas T. Kendall of the Community Rights Counsel in Wash- ington, D.C. "Ninety percent of American municipalities have less than ~o,ooo people and cannot afford a full-time municipal lawyer. For these municipalities, defending against a single takings suit by a wealthy developer can result in debilitating costs. For example, Hudson, Ohio, a communi~ of z~,ooo, had to spend more than $4oo,ooo in an ulti- mately successful effort to defend against a challenge to the city's growth management ordinance spearheaded by the Home Builders Association of Greater Akron .... Litigation costs for small communities, have soared in recent years." APA acknowie~ged that "Landowners deserve a fair forum and a full hearing for their constitutional claims." But once a landowner has received · a fair hearing, to grant a request for a sec- ond hearing in a different forum "would unfairly put two hammers to the heads of local officials." THE COURT'S DECISION The Court agreed with the position advanced by APA and others and refused to create an exception to the furl faith and credit statute. Congress had not expressed an intent to cre- ate such an exception when it passed the full faith and credit act, the Court said, and the "weighty interests in finality and comity trump the interest in giving losing litigants access to an additional appellate tribunaL" Justice Stevens concluded his opinion by stating, "State courts are fully competent to adiudicate constitutional challenges to local land-use decisions. Indeed, state courts undoubtedly have more experience than fed- eral courts do in resolving the complex fac- tual, technical, and legal questions related to zoning and land-use regulations." CONCLUSION Four cases and four very different outcomes, and each a "win" for planners and the planning profession. The first jettisoned a troublesome te~t from future regulatory takin§s cases (Lingle v. Chevron); the second held the course and made no changes to the eminent domain clause (Kelo v. City of New London); the third clarified that there are no money damages and attorneys fees avail- able for challenges of zonin§ decisions made pursuant to the Telecommunications Act (city of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams); and the fourth said there wilt not be two bites at the litigation apple. When a state court makes a final decision on a federal takings claim, there will be no further pursuit ora higher court (San Remo Hotel, L.P.. ~. City and County o[ San Francisco). Electrortic copies of the Supreme Court decisions are available to Zoning Practice sub- scribers by contacting Michael Davidson, edi- tor, Zoning Practice, at the American Planning Association, t22 South Michigan Avenue, Suite ~6oo, Chicago, IL 6o6o3, or by sending an e-mail to mdavidson@planning, or§. The full opinion of each can be found on APA's web- site at www. planning, org/amicusbriefs/along with the amicus curiae briefAPA filed in each case. VOL. ~2, NO. 8 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $9o (foreign). W. Paul I~armer, ~cp, Executive Director; William R. Klein, ~lcp, Director of Research. Zoning Practice (ISSN ~548-o~35) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, ^~cP, and Michaet Davidson, Editors; Barry gain, ^~cP, Fay Dolnick, Megan Lewis, ^~cP, Marya Morris, ^lcP, Rebecca Retzlaff, ^lop, Lynn M. Ross, ^~cP, Sarah K. Wiebenson, Reporters; julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright ©2oo5 by American Planning Association, t2~ S. Michigan Ave., Suite t6oo, Chico§o, IL 6o6o3. The American Planning Association also has offices at ~776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 2oo36; www. plannin§.or§: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by' any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, rocor:ding, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Americqn Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and ~o% postconsumer waste~ ZONINGPRACTICE 08.05